Bridging global health actors and agendas: the role of national public health institutes.

Global health crises require coordination and collaboration among actors and global health agendas including health security, health promotion, and universal health coverage. This study investigated whether national public health institutes (NPHIs) unify agendas and actors, how this can be achieved, and what factors contribute to success. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 public health leaders from 18 countries in six WHO regions between 2019 and 2020. Respondents described how NPHIs bridge agendas reporting five strategies that institutes employ: serving as a trusted scientific advisor; convening actors across and within sectors; prioritizing transdisciplinary approaches; integrating public health infrastructures, and training that builds public health capacity. Findings also revealed five enabling factors critical to success: a strong legal foundation; scientific independence; public trust and legitimacy; networks and partnerships at global, national, and local levels; and stable funding. The Covid-19 pandemic underscores the urgency of securing scientific independence and promoting national institutes' responsiveness to public health challenges.

The COVID-19 pandemic and disruptions in a district quality improvement initiative: Experiences from the CLEVER Maternity Care programme.

BACKGROUND: Many health systems were poorly prepared for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and found it difficult to protect maternity and reproductive health services. The aim of the study was to explore the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ability of maternity healthcare providers to maintain the positive practices introduced by the CLEVER Maternity Care programme and to elicit information on their support needs. METHODS: This multimethod study was conducted in midwife-led obstetric units (MOUs) and district hospitals in Tshwane District, South Africa and included a survey questionnaire and qualitative reports and reflections by the CLEVER implementation team. Two five-point Likert-scale items were supplemented by open-ended questions to provide suggestions on improving health systems and supporting healthcare workers. RESULTS: Most of the 114 respondents were advanced midwives or registered nurses (86%). Participants from MOUs rated the maintenance of quality care practices significantly higher than those from district hospitals (p = 0.0130). There was a significant difference in perceptions of support from the district management between designations (p = 0.0037), with managers having the most positive perception compared with advanced midwives (p = 0.0018) and registered nurses (p = 0.0115). The interpretation framework had three main themes: working environment and health-system readiness; quality of patient care and service provision; and healthcare workers' response to the pandemic. Health-facility readiness is described as proactive, reactive or lagging. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned from this pandemic should be used to build responsive health systems that will enable primary healthcare workers to maintain quality patient care, services and communication.